Abortion Essays (1157 words) - Abortion Debate,

Abortion Abortion has been one of the topics of hot debate for the last three decades in our nation. Since the Roe v/s Wade decision in 1973, some Americans feel the need to ponder whether aborting fetuses is a moral action. On the one hand, some people feel that abortion should be legal because a woman has a right to choose whether she wants to continue a pregnancy or not. It's her body. On the other hand, some feel that fetuses have no advocates and deserve a right to live, so it is immoral to abandon their rights and kill them. This issue is not only at the center of political debate, but philosophical debate as well. In this paper, I will examine and critique Mary Anne Warren's On the Moral and Legal Status of Abortion, where she examines the moral humanity of the fetus and its right to life. Mary Anne Warren describes how abortion should be kept legal without any restrictions on it. She states that the pro-abortion argument should center around the moral status of the baby, not simply on the rights of the mother. Yet, she does criticize those who defend abortion as the right to control one's body, ?it would be very odd to describe, say, breaking a leg, as damaging one's property, and much more appropriate to describe it as injuring oneself (Warren, 314). She uses this analogy to show the inappropriateness of a woman's body being her property. She continues her work by using Judith Thomson's paper, A Defense of Abortion as a tool to navigate her idea that abortion is morally permissible, even if a fetus has moral rights. Judith Thomson, according to Warren, says, ?a woman is under no moral obligation to complete an unwanted pregnancy (Warren, 315). Warren uses one of Thomson's analogies to help state further rationalize her hypothesis. The analogy is this: What if you found yourself in bed next to a famous violinist with your kidneys hooked up to his body. He will remain unconscious while he shares your kidneys for nine months. No one else can save him because you have the same blood type. If you don't continue this act of sharing for a period of nine months, he will die. If you do continue the procedure willingly, he will live. The question becomes, if you are an anti-abortionist will you stay consistent and feel obligated to save his life? Warren says that it is absurd to feel as though it would be murder if one declined to share their body (Warren, 316). She concludes her use of this analogy by agreeing with Thomson: even though a fetus is a human, a woman still has a right to obtain an abortion (Warren, 317). Even though Warren agrees with Thomson on some levels, she does mention one problem with this. A fetus comes into existence as a result of the woman's actions; the violinist does not. This is when she breaks off from Thomson and forms her own opinion: the need for the realization that a fetus is not a person (distinguishing between human and person) and does not have a right to life. Section II of Warren's article attempts to define what a person is, to follow through with her claim that a fetus may be a human, but is not a person, so therefore has no moral humanity. According to Warren, to be human deals with genetic humanity, the personhood deals with moral humanity (Warren, 319). She claims that if you are a person you have moral status and your rights should be respected, if you are not a person none of that applies to you. So all she has to do is prove that a fetus is not a person, and that will prove that abortion is moral. She gives five different characteristics that classify what a person is: (1) consciousness and the ability to feel pain, (2) reasoning and solving problems, (3) self-motivated activity, (4) communication with numerous possible content, (5) self-concept of individuality or racial ethnicity (Warren, 320). If one refers to the five standards of being a person, a fetus could not be a person, so abortion is therefore moral, according to

Proof Definition and Examples in Rhetoric

Proof Definition and Examples in Rhetoric In rhetoric, proof is the part of a speech or written composition that sets out the arguments in support of a thesis.  Also known as confirmation,  confirmatio, pistis, and probatio. In classical rhetoric, the three modes of rhetorical (or artistic) proof are ethos, pathos, and logos. At the heart of Aristotles theory of logical proof  is the rhetorical syllogism or enthymeme. For manuscript proof, see proof (editing) Etymology From the Latin, prove Examples and Observations In rhetoric, a proof is never absolute, since rhetoric is concerned with probable truth and its communication. . . . The fact is that we live much of our lives in the realm of the probabilities. Our important decisions, both at the national level and at the professional and personal level, are, in fact, based on probabilities. Such decisions are within the realm of rhetoric.- W. B. Horner, Rhetoric in the Classical Tradition. St. Martins Press, 1988If we regard confirmation or proof as the designation of that part where we get down to the main business of our discourse, this term can be extended to cover expository as well as argumentative prose. . . .As a general rule, in presenting our own arguments we should not descend from our strongest arguments to our weakest. . . . We want to leave our strongest argument ringing in the memory of our audience; hence we usually place it in the emphatic final position.- E. Corbett, Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. Oxford University Pre ss, 1999 Proofs in Aristotles RhetoricThe opening [of Aristotles Rhetoric] defines rhetoric as the counterpart of dialectic, which seeks not to persuade but to find the appropriate means of persuasion in any given situation (1.1.1-4 and 1.2.1). These means are to be found in various kinds of proof or conviction (pistis). . . . Proofs are of two kinds: inartistic (not involving rhetorical art- e.g., in forensic [judicial] rhetoric: laws, witnesses, contracts, torture, and oaths) and artificial [artistic] (involving the art of rhetoric).- P. Rollinson, A Guide to Classical Rhetoric. Summertown, 1998 Quintilian on the Arrangement of a Speech [W]ith regard to the divisions which I have made, it is not to be understood that that which is to be delivered first is necessary to be contemplated first; for we ought to consider, before everything else, of what nature the cause is; what is the question in it; what may profit or injure it; next, what is to be maintained or refuted; and then, how the statement of facts should be made. For the statement is preparatory to proof, and cannot be made to advantage, unless it is first settled what it ought to promise as to proof. Last of all, it is to be considered how the judge is to be conciliated; for, until all the bearings of the cause be ascertained, we cannot know what sort of feeling it is proper to excite in the judge, whether inclined to severity or gentleness, to violence or laxity, to inflexibility or mercy.- Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory, 95 AD Intrinsic and Extrinsic Proofs Aristotle counseled the Greeks in his Treatise on Rhetoric that the means of persuasion must include both intrinsic and extrinsic proofs.By extrinsic proof Aristotle meant direct evidence that was not the creation of the speakers art. Direct evidence could include laws, contracts, and oaths, as well as the testimony of witnesses. In the legal proceedings of Aristotles time, this kind of evidence was usually obtained in advance, recorded, put in sealed urns, and read in court. Intrinsic proof was that created by the art of the orator. Aristotle distinguished three kinds of intrinsic proof: (1) originating in the character of the speaker; (2) resident in the mind of the audience; and (3) inherent in the form and phrase of the speech itself. Rhetoric is a form of persuasion that is to be approached from these three directions and in that order. - Ronald C. White, Lincolns Greatest Speech: The Second Inaugural. Simon Schuster, 2002